310 
i 

50 
. 5 

>y 1 



STATE DOCUMENTS 



Fed 



ON 



DERAL RELATIONS: 



THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES. 



NUMBER V. 




SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTION, 

1789-1848. 



EDITED WITH NOTES BY 

HERMAN V. AMES,\Ph.D. 



PUBLISHED BY 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, 

OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

Sold by the Department of History, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. , 
and by Longmans, Green & Co., New York. 

PHILADELPHIA. IQ04- 



CONTENTS. 



NUMBER. PAGE. 

Early Resolutions on Slavery I 

95. The House of Representatives on the Powers of Congress, 1790. 2 

96. Resolutions of Virginia on Colonization, 1800-18 16 .... 3 
The Missouri Contest, 1819-1820 4 

97-100. Resolutions of Pennsylvania,New Jersey, Virginia and Vermont. 5—1 1 

101. Ohio on Emancipation and Colonization, 1824 . . .... 11 

102-104. South Carolina's Reply to Ohio and the Federal Government, 

1824 12-16 

105. Message of Governor Troop of Georgia, 1825 16 

Resolutions on the Colonization Society, 1 827-1 832 .... 17 

106. Resolutions of Delaware, 1827 18 

107. Resolutions of Georgia, 1827 19 

The South on the Abolition Question, 1831-39 22 

108. Resolutions of South Carolina, 1835 24 

Reply of the Northern States, 1836-39 . 28 

109. New York in Reply to the South . 28 

Slavery in the District of Columbia and the Right of Peti- 
tion, 1836-44 29 

no. Resolutions of Massachusetts, 1837 3° 

in. Resolutions of New York, 1840 31 

Annexation of Texas, 1837-45 32 

112. Resolution of Vermont, 1837 33 

113. Report of the Legislature of Mississippi, 1837 33 

114. Report and Resolution of Alabama, 1837 35 

115. Resolution of South Carolina, 1844 37 

116-1x7. Massachusetts opposes annexation, 1843-45 37 _ 4° 

Inter-State Controversies, 1837-43 4° 

118. South Carolina on Georgia-Maine Controversy, 1839 ... 42 

119. Virginia's Controversy with New York, 1840 43 

120. Resolutions of Mississippi, 1841 43 

South Carolina's controversy with Massachusetts . . . . 45 

121. Resolution of South Carolina, 1844 . 4° 

Replies to Massachusetts' proposal to abolish representation 

for slaves 47 

122. Virginia Reply, 1844 • • • • 47 



STATE DOCUMENTS 



ON 



FEDERAL RELATIONS: 

THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES. 



NUMBER V. 



Early Resolutions on Slavery : Powers of Congress, 

1790-1808. 

The House of Representatives of the first Congress was called upon to de* 
fine the powers vested in Congress relating to slavery. As this question be- 
came of such vital importance in the later struggle over slavery it seems 
desirable to note the first formal expression of opinion from an official source. 
The subjoined resolutions were adopted, March 23, 1790, by the Committee 
of the whole House, after an extended discussion, by a vote of 29 yeas to 25 
nays, in place of the report of the special committee. Annals, 1 Cong., 2 sess., 
1413-1417, 1450-1474; House Journal, 168-181; Du Bois, Suppression of 
the African Slave Trade, ch. VIII; Schouler, I, 145-148; Wilson, Rise and 
Fall of the Slave Power, I, 60-67; Curtis, Const. History, II, 231-244. 

Three years later Congress was led to exercise the power conferred upon it 
by the Constitution to pass the first Fugitive Slave Act, Feb. 12, 1793 {Stat, at 
Large, I, 302). See, McDougall, Fugitive Slaves, 16-19; Hildreth, IV, 406- 
440; Von Hoist, I, 309-315; Wilson, I, ch. VI. 

With the exception of the resolutions of Virginia, of 1 800-1 804, on colon- 
ization, referred to later, the only other phase of the slavery question which 

193] 1 



STATE DOCUMENTS 



[194 



especially called out resolutions from the State legislatures during the early 
years was that of the abolition of the foreign slave trade. In the period 
i8o4-'o8 at least seven states, including North Carolina, Maryland and 
Tennessee proposed an amendment to the Constitution to abolish this trade, 
but this was deemed unnecessary, and the trade was prohibited by act of Con- 
gress, March 2, 1807, to S° mto effect on Jan. 1, 1808. {Stat, at Large, II, 
426.) See Du Bois, ch. VIII; Ames, Proposed Amendments, 208, 209 : Wilson, 
I, ch. VII. 



95. The House of Representatives on the Powers 
of Congress. 

March 23, 1790. 

The Committee of the whole House, to whom was committed 
the report of the committee on memorials of the people called 
Quakers, and of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abol- 
ition of Slavery, report the following amendments : 

First. That the migration or importation of such persons as 
any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, can- 
not be prohibited by Congress, prior to the year one thousand 
eight hundred and eight. 

Secondly. That Congress have no authority to interfere in the 
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of 
the States ; it remaining with the several States alone to provide 
any regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may re- 
quire. 

Thirdly. That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens 
of the United States from carrying on the African trade, for the 
purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing, by 
proper regulations, for the humane treatment, during their pas- 
sage, of slaves, imported by the said citizens into the States ad- 
mitting such importation. 

Fourthly. That Congress have authority to prohibit foreigners 
from fitting out vessels in any port of the United States for trans- 
porting persons from Africa to any foreign port. 1 

1 This resolution is the same as in the report of Special Committee. 



195] 



VIRGINIA ON COLONIZATION 3 

96. Resolutions of Virginia on Colonization. 

December 23, 1816. 

As early as December 31, 1800, the Virginia House of Delegates, in conse 
quence of a slave conspiracy authorized Governor Monroe to correspond with 
President Jefferson in regard to the purchase of lands " whither persons ob- 
noxious to the laws and dangerous to the peace of society may be removed." 
This correspondence was laid before the legislature, and that body, on Janu- 
ary 23, 1802, adopted resolutions in favor of the United States procuring a 
place without the limits of the country, preferably Africa or South America, 
for the colonization of free negroes. Again in December, 1804, other resolu- 
tions were passed favoring the setting apart a portion of Louisiana for this 
purpose. For text of these resolutions and the Monroe-Jefferson correspond- 
ence, see American State Papers, Misc., I, 464-467; Annals, 9 Cong., 2 sess., 
Appx., 994-1000. See also Jefferson's Works, V, 563; Writings, VIII, 103, 
152, 161. 

Here the matter rested until December 23, 181 6, when the question was 
again raised by the subjoined resolutions of Virginia. (Vote of House, 137 to 
9.) This movement was followed by the organization of the American Colo- 
nization Society at Washington a few days later. The objects of the society 
were shortly endorsed by Georgia, Dec. 19, 181 7; Maryland, Jan. 26, 1818; 
Tennessee, in 1818, and Vermont, Nov. 5, 1819. Opposition to the movement 
did not appear until about 1824. (See post, p. 203.) Mercer's Report, 19 Cong,, 
2 sess., House Reports, II, No. 101, contains the history of the society, extracts 
from its Reports and acts and resolutions of several of the states, 1817-27. 
See Annual Reports of Amer. Col. Society, 1818-; also Memorial of the Semi- 
centennial Anniversary of Amer. Col. Society (1867), 65-78. The text of 
the Virginia resolutions is in Acts of Virginia, 1816-17, 200; Niles, XI, 275. 

General references: Ballagh, History of Slavery in Virginia, 136, 137; 
McPherson in Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, IX, 495-497; McMaster, IV, 
557-5635 v » I 93- I 96; Schouler, II, 58, 129; III, 138-144; Von Hoist, I, 
329-333; Wilson, Rise and Fall of Slave Power, I, ch. XV. 

Whereas the General Assembly of Virginia have repeatedly 
sought to obtain an asylum, beyond the limits of the United 
States, for such persons of colour, as had been, or might be eman- 
cipated under the laws of this commonwealth, but have hitherto 
found all their efforts, for the accomplishment of this desirable 
purpose, frustrated, either by the disturbed state of other nations, 
or domestic causes equally unpropitious to its success ; 

They now avail themselves of a period, when peace has healed 



STATE DOCUMENTS 



[I 9 6 



the wounds of humanity, and the principal nations of Europe 
have concurred, with the government of the United States, in 
abolishing the African slave trade, (a traffic which this common- 
wealth, both before and since the revolution, zealously sought to 
terminate,) to renew this effort, and do therefore resolve, that the 
executive be requested to correspond with the President of the 
United States, for the purpose of obtaining a territory upon the 
coast of Africa, or upon the shore of the North Pacific, or at 
some other place not within any of the States or territorial gov- 
ernments of the United States, to serve as an asylum for such 
persons of colour, as are now free, and may desire the same, and 
for those who may be hereafter emancipated, within this common- 
wealth ; and that the senators and representatives of this state in 
this congress of the United States be requested to exert their best 
efforts to aid the president of the United States in the attainment 
of the above object : Provided, that no contract or arrangement 
respecting such territory shall be obligatory on this common- 
wealth until ratified by the Legislature. 

[Acts of Virginia, 1 81 6, 200.] 



The Missouri Contest. 
1819-1820. 

While the question of the admission of Missouri was still pending in Con- 
gress during the session of 1819-20, the legislatures of several of the northern 
states adopted resolutions against the admission of Missouri, except with the 
exclusion of slavery. Such resolutions were passed by Vermont, New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio 
and Indiana. On the other hand, resolutions opposing any such restrictions 
were adopted by some of the southern states, including Maryland, Virginia 
and Kentucky. The Massachusetts and Virginia resolutions were each accom- 
panied by a report containing the chief arguments advanced in support of their 
respective positions. The New Hampshire report (June, 1820) replied to that 
from Virginia. (JViles, XVIII, 337-340.) Examples of each class follow. 
For the text of others, see Ver?nont Assembly Journal, 1819, 109, 174, 212; 
Records of Governor and Council of Vermont, VI, 540; Resolves of Massa- 
chusetts, 1819-24, 147-151; Journal of New York Assembly, 1820, 115; Laws 
of Pennsylvania, VIII, 674; Acts of Virginia, 1819-20, 113-124; Acts of 
Kentucky, 1819-20, 989 990; Senate Journal, 16 Cong,, I sess., 78-80, 113- 



1 97 ] RESOLUTIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA 5 

116, 124, 130, 131, 136. Several of the above are also given in Niles, XVII, 
296, 334, 342-344, 395> 399, 400, 4*6; XVIII, 337-34°; Greeley, History oj 
the Struggle of Slavery Extension and Restriction (N. Y., 1856), 25-27; 
National Intelligencer, February 8, 1821; McMaster, IV, 577-579; Hildreth, 

VI, 687, 688. 

General references: MacDonald, Documents, 219-226; Burgess, ch. IV; 
Greeley, American Conflict, I, ch. VII; Hildreth, VI, 661-712, passim; 
McMaster, IV, ch. XXXIX; Rhodes, I, 29-40; Schouler, III, 155-173, 178- 
186; Schurz, Clay % I, ch. VIII; Thorpe, Constitutional History American 
People, I, ch. X; Von Hoist, I, ch. IX; Wilson, I, ch. XI, XII; Woodburn in 
American Historical Association Reports, 1893,251-297; Jefferson's Works, 

VII, 158, 159, 194; Writings, X, 156-158, 172, 177, 178, 180; Madiscn's 
Works, III, 149-157, 167-169, 186, 187, 199; Monroe's Writings, VI, 114- 
116, 121, 160-162; Johnson, American Orations (Rev. Ed.), II, 33-101, 
343-365; Channing and Hart, Guide, § 177. 



97. Resolutions of Pennsylvania. 

December 22, 1819. 

* * * A measure was ardently supported in the last Con- 
gress of the United States, and will probably be as earnestly 
urged during the existing session of that body, which has a pal- 
pable tendency to impair the political relations of the several 
states ; which is calculated to mar the social happiness of the 
present, and future generations ; which, if adopted, would impede 
the march of humanity and freedom through the world, and would 
affix and perpetuate an odious stain upon the present race : a 
measure, in brief, which proposes to spread the crimes and cruel- 
ties of slavery, from the banks of the Mississippi to the shores of 
the Pacific. 

When measures of this character are seriously advocated in the 
republican congress of America in the nineteenth century, the 
several states are invoked to the duty which they owe to the 
Deity, by the veneration which they entertain for the memory of 
the founders of the republic, and by a tender regard for posterity, 
to protest against its adoption, to refuse to covenant with crime, 
and to limit the range of an evil that already hangs in awful bod- 
ing over so large a portion of the Union. * * * 

If, indeed, the measure against which Pennsylvania considers 



STATE DOCUMENTS 



[I 9 8 



it her duty to raise her voice, was calculated to abridge any of 
the rights guaranteed to the several states ; if, odious as slavery 
is, it was proposed to hasten its extinction by means injurious to 
the states upon which it was unhappily entailed, Pennsylvania 
would be amongst the first to insist upon a sacred observance of 
the constitutional compact. But it cannot be pretended that the 
rights of any of the states are at all to be affected by the refusing 
to extend the mischiefs of human bondage over the boundless 
regions of the west, a territory which formed no part of the con- 
federation at the adoption of the constitution ; which has been 
but lately purchased from an European power by the people of 
the Union at large ; which may or may not be admitted as a state 
into the Union at the discretion of Congress, which must estab- 
lish a republican form of government, and no other ; and whose 
climate affords none of the pretexts urged for resorting to the 
labor of natives of the torrid zone. Such a territory has no right, 
inherent or acquired, such as those states possessed which estab- 
lished the existing constitution. When that constitution was 
framed, in September, seventeen hundred and eighty seven, the 
concession that three fifths of the slaves in the states then existing 
should be represented in Congress, could not have been to em- 
brace regions at that time held by a foreign power. On the 
contrary, so anxious were the Congress of that day to confine 
human bondage within its ancient home, that, on the thirteenth 
of July, seventeen hundred and eighty seven, that body unani- 
mously declared that slavery or involuntary servitude should not 
exist in the extensive territories bounded by the Ohio, the Mis- 
sissippi, Canada and the lakes. And in the ninth section of the 
first article of the constitution itself, the power of Congress to 
prohibit the migration of servile persons after the year eighteen 
hundred and eight, is expressly recognized ; nor is there to be 
found in the statute book a single instance of the admission of a 
territory to the rank of a state, in which Congress have not ad- 
hered to the right vested in them by the constitution, to stipulate 
with the territory upon the conditions of such admission. 

The Senate and House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, 
therefore, cannot but deprecate any departure from the humane 



igg] RESOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY 7 

and enlightened policy, pursued not only by the illustrious Con- 
gress of 1787, but by their successors, without exception. They 
are persuaded that, to open the fertile regions of the west to a 
servile race, would tend to increase their numbers beyond all past 
example, would open a new and steady market for the lawless 
venders of human flesh, and would render all schemes for obliter- 
ating this most foul blot upon the American character, useless and 
unavailing. 

Under these convictions, and in the full persuasion that upon 
this topic there is but one opinion in Pennsylvania — 

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, That the Senators and Repre- 
sentatives of this state in the Congress of the United States, be 
and they are hereby requested, to vote against the admission of 
any territory as a state into the Union, unless " the further intro- 
duction of slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punish- 
ment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 
shall be prohibited ; and all children born within the said terri- 
tory, after its admission into the Union as a state, shall be free, 
but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years." 

[Resolution of transmission.] 

[Senate Journal, 16 Cong., 1 sess., 78-80.] 



98. Resolutions of New Jersey. 

January 24, 1820. 

1. They 1 do resolve and declare, That the further admission of 
territories into the Union, without restriction of slavery, would, in 
their opinion, essentially impair the right of this and other exist- 
ing states to equal representation in Congress, (a right at the 
foundation of the political compact,) inasmuch as such newly 
admitted slave holding state would be represented on the basis 
of their slave population \ a concession made at the formation of 

1 The representatives of the people of New Jersey, etc. 



8 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 2 00 

the constitution, in favor of the then existing states, but never 
stipulated for new states, nor to be inferred from any article or 
clause in that instrument. 

2. Resolved, That, to admit the territory of Missouri as a state 
into the Union, without prohibiting slavery there, would, in the 
opinion of the representatives of the people of New Jersey afore- 
said, be no less than to sanction this great political and moral 
evil, furnish the ready means of peopling a vast territory with 
slaves, and perpetuate all the dangers, crimes, and pernicious 
effects of domestic bondage. 

3. Resolved, As the opinion of the representatives of the afore- 
said, That, inasmuch as no territory has a right to be admitted 
into the Union but on the principles of the federal constitution, 
and only by a law of Congress consenting thereto on the part of the 
existing states, Congress may rightfully, and ought to refuse such 
law, unless upon reasonable and just conditions, assented to on 
the part of the people applying to become one of the states. 

4. Resolved, In the opinion of the representatives aforesaid, 
That the article of the constitution which restrains Congress from 
prohibiting the migration or importation of slaves, until after the 
year eighteen hundred and eight, does, by necessary implication, 
admit the general power of Congress over the subject of slavery, 
and concedes to them the right to regulate and restrain such 
migration and importation after that time, into the existing or 
any newly to be created state. 

5. Resolved, As the opinion of the representatives of the people 
of New Jersey aforesaid, That, inasmuch as Congress have a clear 
right to refuse the admission of a territory into the Union, by the 
terms of the constitution, they ought in the present case to exer- 
cise that absolute discretion, in order to preserve the political 
rights of the several existing states, and prevent the great national 
disgrace and multiplied mischiefs which must ensue from conced- 
it, as a matter of right, in the immense territories yet to claim 
admission into the Union, beyond the Mississippi, that they may 
tolerate slavery. 

[Resolution of transmission.] 

[Senate yournal, 16 Con%. y I sess., 113.] 



20l] 



RESOLUTIONS OF VIRGINIA 



99. Resolutions of Virginia. 

February 1, 1820. 

The General Assembly of Virginia have beheld, with the deep- 
est concern, the proceedings in congress, upon the petition of the 
people of Missouri to be admitted into the union. They believe 
that the effort, which is now making, to impose upon the people, 
as one of the conditions of their admission, an unalterable inhibi- 
tion of slavery, is forbidden, by good faith, by the constitution of 
the United States, and by considerations intimately connected 
with the tranquillity and welfare of the nation. * * * 

Entertaining these views of the obligation of the treaty, the 
principles of the constitution, and the character of the proposed 
measure ; — believing that the adoption of this measure would be 
an act of oppression to the people of Missouri, a breach of public 
faith, and a dangerous infraction of the constitution ; — believing, 
moreover, that it is eminently calculated to kindle the angriest 
passions 5 to excite bitterness, jealousy and distrust among the 
states ; to extinguish that spirit of concession, and destroy that 
mutual forbearance and fraternal affection which founded and 
have sustained our confederacy ; — sincerely attached to the union 
of these states, and the constitution which binds them together ; 
— and anxious to avert the evils which threaten ; — the General 
Assembly has felt itself imperiously called upon to avow its opin- 
ions, and endeavor to give them effect. Therefore, 

Resolved, That, in the opinion of the General Assembly of 
Virginia, the people of Missouri have a right to demand, upon the 
faith of the treaty of 1803, that they shall be admitted into the 
union upon terms of equality with the other states. 

That the congress of the United States have no right to im- 
pose upon the people of Missouri, as a condition of their admis- 
sion into the union, the restriction which has been proposed in 
congress, or any other restriction not necessary to guarantee a 
republican form of government. 

Resolved, That the senators from this state in the congress of 
the United States, be instructed, and the representatives requested, 



I0 STATE DOCUMENTS [202 

to use their best efforts in procuring the admission of the state of 
Missouri into the union, upon the principles contained in the 
foregoing resolutions, and in resisting any attempt which shall be 
made in congress, to impose conditions upon the people of Mis- 
souri, not warranted by the treaty of cession and the constitution 
of the United States. [Resolutions of transmission.] 

[Acts of Virginia, 1819-20, 113, 123, 124.I 



100. Vermont on the Missouri Constitution. 

November 16, 1820. 

The following resolutions were called out by the obnoxious clauses in the 
new constitution of Missouri, which led to a renewal of the contest in Con- 
gress in the session of 1820-21, and ended with a second compromise. The 
text is given in Records of Governor and Council, VI, 541-543; Senate 
Journal, 16 Cong., 2 sess., 50-54. For similar resolutions adopted by New 
York, Nov. 13, 1820, and by the Indiana House of Representatives Dec. 30, 
1820, see Niles, XIX, 208; National Intelligencer, Feb. 8, 1821. 

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this legislature, slavery, or 
involuntary servitude, in any of the United States, is a moral and 
political evil ; and that its continuance can be justified by neces- 
sity alone. 

That Congress has a right to inhibit any further introduction or 
extension of slavery, as one of the conditions upon which any 
new state shall be admitted into the Union. 

Resolved, That this legislature views with regret and alarm, the 
attempt of the inhabitants of Missouri to obtain admission into 
the Union, as one of the United States, under a constitution which 
legalizes and secures the introduction and continuance of slavery ; 
and also contains provisions to prevent freemen of the United 
States from emigrating to, and settling in Missouri, on account of 
their origin, colour, and features. And that, in the opinion of 
this legislature, these principles, powers, and restrictions, con- 
tained in the reputed constitution of Missouri, are anti-republican, 
and repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and sub- 
versive of the unalienable rights of man. 



203] EMANCIPATION AND COLONIZATION r x 

Resolved, That the Senators from this state, in the Congress of 
the United States, be instructed, and the Representatives re- 
quested, to exert their influence, and use all legal means, to pre- 
vent the admission of Missouri, as a state, into the union of the 
United States, with those anti-republican features and powers in 
their constitution. [Resolution of transmission.] 



101. Ohio on Emancipation and Colonization. 

January 17, 1824. 

The Ohio Legislature, by adopting the subjoined resolutions, revived the 
agitation of the colonization question. By June of 1825, eight other Northern 
States had indorsed the proposition (Pa., Vt., N. J., Del., 111., Ind., Conn., 
Mass.), but six of the slave-holding states emphatically disapproved of the 
suggestion, viz.: Georgia, Dec. 7, 1824; South Carolina, Dec, 1824; Mis- 
souri, Jan. 22, 1825; Mississippi, Feb., 1825, and Jan. 23, 1826; Louisiana, 
Feb. 16, 1826, and Alabama, Jan. 1, 1827. 

The text of several of these resolutions are given in Papers of the Governor ', 
Penna. Archives, 4th series, V, 507, 555, 572, 580, 582, 602-604, 621, 643- 
645, and in the session laws of the above-mentioned States. See also Mc- 
Master, V. 204; W. H. Smith, Political History of Slavery, I, 23, 24. 

"Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio ; That 
the consideration of a system providing for the gradual emanci- 
pation of the people of color, held in servitude in the United 
States, be recommended to the Legislatures of the several States 
of the American Union, and to the Congress of the United States. 

Resolved, That in the opinion of the General Assembly a sys- 
tem of foreign colonization, with correspondent measures might 
be adopted that would in due time effect the entire emancipation 
of the slaves in our country without any violation of the national 
compact, or infringement of the rights of individuals ; by the pas- 
sage of a law by the general government (with the consent of the 
slaveholding states) which should provide that all children or 
persons now held in slavery, born after the passage of such law, 
should be free at the age of twenty-one years (being supported 
during their minority by the persons claiming the service of their 
parents) providing they then consent to be transported to the in- 
tended place of colonization — Also — 



1 2 STATE DOCUMENTS [204 

Resolved, That it is expedient that such a system should be 
predicated upon the principle that the evil of slavery is a national 
one, and that the people and the states of this Union ought 
mutually to participate in the duties and burthens of removing it. 

Resolved, That his Excellency, the Governor be requested to 
forward a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to his Excellency the 
Governor of each of the United States, requesting him to lay the 
same before the legislature thereof: and that his Excellency will 
also forward a like copy to each of our Senators and Representa- 
tives in Congress requesting their co-operation in all national 
measures having a tendency to effect the grand object embraced 
therein. 

[Laws of Ohio , Local, 1824, 160.] 



South Carolina's Reply to Ohio and the Federal 
Government. 

In consequence of the disclosure of a negro plot at Charleston, in May, 1822, 
the Legislature passed, among other precautionary measures, the "Negro Sea- 
men Act," Dec. 21, 1822. {Acts of S. C, 1822, 11-14.) The enforcement of 
this law soon brought out protests from American masters. {Annals, 17 
Cong., 2 sess., 1055; Niles, XXIV, 31, 32.) The test case of Elkinson vs. 
Ddiesseline came before the U. S. District Court and Judge Wm. Johnson, a 
citizen of South Carolina, on August 7, 1823, held the law unconstitutional. 
{Niles, XXV, 12-16, 47.) But South Carolina refused to abide by this deci- 
sion and continued to enforce the law. Soon complaints were lodged by the 
British Government at the State Department. {Niles, XXVII, 261, 262.) 
The Attorney-General, William Wirt, gave the opinion that the law was 
neither constitutional nor compatible with the rights of England under the 
treaty. (1 Opinions Attorney -General, 659; Niles, XXVII, 262, 263.) 
This protest, together with Wirt's opinion, were sent to Governor Wilson, of 
South Carolina, and by him transmitted to the legislature, Nov. 25, 1824 
(Message in Niles, XXVII, 261.) 

In the meantime the Legislature of Georgia, Dec. 22, 1823, suggested a 
remedy by proposing to so amend the Federal Constitution as to leave " the 
importation or ingress of any person of color " into a state wholly to the laws 
of each state. The Ohio proposition also came before the legislature at about 
this time. The above circumstance accounts in part for the character of Gov- 
ernor Wilson's Message, transmitting the Georgia proposition and the reply of 
the Senate to the Attorney-General's opinion and the Ohio proposal, which 



205] MESSAGE OF GOVERNOR WILSON I3 

follow. The House refused to accept the Senate resolves and adopted a milder 
reply. The Georgia amendment, between 1824 and 1826, was approved by- 
Missouri, Mississippi and Louisiana, and disapproved of by nine other states. 
(Ames, Proposed Amendments, 210, 339.) 

Not only was this act enforced by South Carolina with" impunity, especially 
against domestic vessels, Attorney-General Berrien, in 1830, having^ reversed 
Wirt's opinion (2 Opinions Attorney- General, 433), but all the other southern 
sea-board states adopted somewhat similar restrictions, while those of Florida 
and Alabama apparently were copied from the laws of South Carolina. (Flor- 
ida, Act of 1832, Thompson's Digest, 546; Alabama, Act of 1831, Clay's 
Digest, 546.) The frictions growing out of the administration of these laws 
led to a renewal of the agitation in 1844. (See post, 237.) 

General references: McMaster, V, 200-204,417; Von Hoist, III, 128, 129; 
Wilson, I, 576, 577. For account of the insurrection, see Atlantic Monthly, 
VII, 730-740. 



102. Message of Governor John L. Wilson of 
South Carolina. 

December 1, 1824. 

In submitting this proposed amendment, I feel a confidence 
that I am submitting, what already attaches to each state in its 
sovereign and independent capacity. A few days since I had the 
honor of enclosing to you the remonstrance of the British minis- 
ter, Mr. Canning, on a clause of a legislative act passed in South 
Carolina, entitled " an act for the better regulation and govern- 
ment of free negroes and persons of color, and for other pur- 
poses," together with the opinion of Mr. Wirt upon the same. A 
reference to the rule laid down by England, under similar circum- 
stances, will, at once, prove that the deductions I drew in my 
communication, were well warranted by her own practice. 

[He refers to the opinion of Solicitor General Lee, in 1791, in 
regard to the right of self-defence of a state in the case of Roman 
Catholics.] 

There should be a spirit of concert and of action among the 
slave-holding states, and a determined resistance to any violation 
of their local institutions. The crisis seems to have arrived when 
we are called upon to protect ourselves. The president of the 



!4 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 2 o5 

United States, and his law adviser, so far from resisting the efforts 
of a foreign ministry, appear to be disposed, by an argument 
drawn from the overwhelming powers of the general government, 
to make us the passive instruments of a policy, at war, not only 
with our interests, but destructive also of our national existence. 
The evils of slavery have been visited upon us by the cupidity of 
those who are now the champions of universal emancipation. A 
firm determination to resist, at the threshold, every invasion of our 
domestic tranquillity, and to preserve our sovereignty and inde- 
pendence as a state, is earnestly recommended ; and, if an appeal 
to the first principles of the right of self-government be disre- 
garded, and reason be successfully combatted by sophistry and 
error, there would be more glory in forming a rampart with our 
bodies on the confines of our territory, than to be the victims of 
a successful rebellion, or the slaves of a great consolidated gov- 
ernment. 

[Ailes, XXVII, 263, 264.] 



103. Resolutions of the Senate of South Carolina. 

December, 1824. 

Resolved, That the state of South Carolina is desirous of com- 
plying with any measure necessary to promote harmony between 
this state and the government of the United States and foreign 
nations, and will cheerfully comply in all cases which do not in- 
volve a surrender of the safety and inherent rights of the state. 

Resolved, That the legislature of this state has carefully consid- 
ered the documents transmitted by the president of the United 
States, being a correspondence with the British minister relative 
to a law, passed December, 1822, regulating free negroes and 
persons of color, and can yet perceive no departure from the 
duties and rights of this state, or of the United States, in that law. 

Resolved, That the legislature sees, with profound regret, the 
alarming symptoms of an unconstitutional interference with her 
colored population, whose condition, as it existed at the estab- 
lishment of the present constitution of the United States, is ex- 



207] RESOLUTIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA 1 5 

pressly recognized, (paragraph 3 of sec. 2, of art. 1), and dis- 
tinctly guaranteed by that instrument. 

Resolved, That it is as much the duty of the state to guard 
against insubordination or insurrection among our colored popu- 
lation, or to control and regulate any cause which might excite 
or produce it, as to guard against any other evil, political or phy- 
sical, which might assail us. This duty is paramount to all laws, 
all treaties, all constitutions. It arises from the supreme and per- 
manent law of nature, the law of self-preservation ; and will never, 
by this state, be renounced, compromised, controlled or partici- 
pated with any power whatever. 

******* 

Resolved, That this legislature, having received a very strange 
and ill-advised communication from the legislature of the state of 
Ohio, approves of the reply of the governor of Georgia to a 
similar communication, and will, on this subject, be ready to 
make common cause with the state of Georgia, and the other 
southern states similarly circumstanced in this respect. 

Resolved, Therefore, that the legislature of South Carolina 
protests against any claims of right, of the United States, to inter- 
fere, in any manner whatever, with the domestic regulations and 
preservatory measures in respect to that part of her property 
which forms the colored population of the state, and which 
property they will not permit to be meddled with, or tampered 
with, or in and manner ordered, regulated, or controlled by any 
other power, foreign or domestic, than this legislature. [Vote 

36 to 6.] 

IMles, XXVII,264.] 



104. Resolutions of House of Representatives of 
South Carolina. 

December, 1824. 

Resolved, That the legislature of South Carolina have received, 

with regret, the communication from the state of Ohio, as the 

discussions to which it invites them can lead to no result but to 

the unfriendly intemperance of conflicting interests and opinions. 



J 6 STATE DOCUMENTS [208 

Resolved, That the legislature of Ohio be informed that the 
people of this state will adhere to a system, descended to them 
from their ancestors, and now inseparably connected with their 
social and political existence. 

Resolvedy That the governor be requested to transmit a copy 
of the above resolutions to the governor of Ohio. 

\_Niles, XXVII, 292.] 



105. Extract from the Message of Governor Troup 

of Georgia. 

May 23, 1825. 

The legislature of Georgia already Dec. 7, 1824, had expressed its disap- 
proval of the Ohio proposition. Governor Troup, aroused by the bill proposed 
by Senator King in the Senate, Feb. 18, 1825, for the establishment of a fund 
from the sale of public lands to be used for aiding in the emancipation of 
slaves and their removal, as also in the removal of free persons of color from 
such states permitting it, for purposes of colonization {Senate jfournal, 18 
Cong.y 2 sess., 171 ; Niles, XXVIII, 276, 277), and by the supposed argument 
of Att.-Gen'l Wirt, gave expression to the following belligerent language in 
his annual message (Niles, XXVIII, 240). Resolutions in keeping therewith 
were introduced into the House, but were not passed. {Ibid., XXVIII, 271, 
272.) The Governor sent a special message, June 7, on the same subject, in 
which he declared tbat, " The United States can choose between our enmity 
and our love." (/did., 277.) Again in his message of Nov. 8, he refers to 
the resolutions from the northern states on the subject of emancipation in 
strong language. {Ibid., XXIX, 207.) References: Niles, XXVIII, 274- 
277; McMaster, V, 205, 206; Von Hoist, I, 439, 440; Phillips, Georgia and 
State Rights, Amer. Hist. Assoc. Rept. 1901, II, 158-160. 

Since your last meeting, our feelings have been again outraged 
by officious and impertinent intermeddlings with our domestic 
concerns. Beside the resolution presented for the consideration 
of the Senate by Mr. King, of New York, it is understood that the 
Attorney General of the United States, who may be presumed to 
represent his Government faithfully, and to speak as its mouth 
piece, has recently maintained, before the Supreme Court, 1 dcc- 

1 See evidence of the Judges refuting this charge. Niles, XXVIII, 347- 
349- 



209] RESOLUTIONS ON COLONIZATION SOCIETY Y j 

trines on this subject, which, if sanctioned by that tribunal, will 
make it quite easy for the Congress, by a short decree, to divest 
this entire interest, without cost to themselves of one dollar, or 
of one acre of public land. This is the uniform practice of the 
Government of the United States ; if it wishes a principle estab- 
lished which it dare not establish for itself, a case is made before 
the Supreme Court, and the principle once settled, the act of 
Congress follows of course. Soon, very soon, therefore, the United 
States' Government, discarding the mask, will openly lend itself 
to a combination of fanatics for the destruction of every thing 
valuable in the Southern country ; one movement of the Congress 
unresisted by you, and all is lost. Temporize no longer — make 
known your resolution that this subject shall not be touched by 
them, but at their peril ; but for its sacred guaranty by the con- 
stitution, we never would have become parties to that instrument ; 
at this moment you would not make yourselves parties to any 
constitution without it ; of course you will not be a party to it, 
from the moment the General Government shall make that 
movement. 

If this matter be an evil, it is our own — if it be a sin, we can 
implore the forgiveness of it — to remove it we ask not even their 
sympathy or assistance : it may be our physical weakness — it is 
our moral strength. * * * I entreat you, therefore, most earn- 
estly, now that it is not too late, to step forth, and, having ex- 
hausted the argument, to stand by your arms. 

(Executive Doc, 19 Cong., 2 sess., IV, No. 59, pp. 69, 70.) 



Resolutions on the Colonization Society. 
1827-1832. 

The agitation aroused by the various propositions for emancipation, and the 
renewed efforts of the American Colonization Society in 1827 to obtain 
national aid for its projects (Exec. Doc, 19 Cong., 2 sess., IV, No. 64), and 
a favorable report from a Committee of the House of Representatives, March 
3, 1827 (House Reports, II, No. 101), called out a new series of resolutions 
pro and con. The legislatures of at least ten States, during 1 827-1 832 in- 



!8 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 2 io 

dorsed this policy. (1827, Ky., Term., Del., Vt.; 1828, Ohio; 1829, Ind., 
Perm.; 1830, Ind., Md.; 1 83 1, Mass.; 1832, Md., New York.) This was met 
by emphatic protests from some of the slave-holding states, notably the fol- 
lowing: South Carolina, December 19, 1827. Ante, p. 145; Georgia, De- 
cember 27, 1827, Acts of Georgia, 1827, 194-200; Senate Doc, 20 Cong., 
I sess., III, No. 81; Exec. Doc, III, No. 126; Dec. 20, 1828, Ante, pp. 153, 
154; MacDonald, 234; Missouri, Jan. 23, 1829, Laws of Mo., 1828-29, 89- 
91; Senate Doc, 20 Cong., 2 sess., II, No. 89. The Georgia and Missouri re- 
ports presented arguments against the constitutionality of the proposed aid. 

Maryland replied to Georgia, 1830 (Niles, XXXVII, 428), but in 1832 
suggested, if necessary, an amendment to the constitution. Acts of Md., 
1831-32. Res. No. 124; Ames, Proposed Amend., 207, 345. Ohio by 1831 
had become non-committal, and declared " it is premature and inexpedient 
to express an opinion." 

References: For resolutions favoring the society, see House Reports, 21 
Cong., 1 sess., Ill, No. 348, pp. 20-26; Ante, p. 195; McMaster, V, 206-208. 
For the attitude of the South see Weeks, Anti-Slavery Sentiment in the 
South, Pub. of Southern History Assoc, II, 97, 100-103, 112-11 $, post, p. — . 
For opposition from abolitionists, Garrison, Life of Garrison, I, 289-304; Jay, 
Misc. Writings on Slavery, 1-124. 



106. Delaware in Favor of the Colonization Society. 

February 8, 1827. 

Be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
State of Delaware, in General Assembly met, That it is requisite 
for our prosperity, and, (what is of more important concern,) 
essential to our safety, that measures should be taken for the 
removal, from this country, of the free negroes and free mulattoes. 

Resolved, That this general assembly approve the objects of 
" the American colonization society " and consider that these 
objects deserve public support, and that they ought to be fostered 
and encouraged by the national government, and with the national 
funds. 

Resolved, That the Senators of this State in Congress, be re- 
quested to approve and promote, in the councils of the nation, 
measures for removing from this country to Africa, the free col- 
oured people who may be willing to emigrate. 

[Laws of Delaware, 1827, 158.] 



2n] GEORGIA ON THE COLONIZATION SOCIETY ig 

107. Georgia on the Colonization Society. 

December 28, 1827. 

* * * At the establishment of the Colonization Society, what- 
ever may have been intended or avowed as its object, your Com- 
mittee believe that they can say with truth, that the general im- 
pression in the southern States as to that object was, that it was 
limited to the removal beyond the United States of the then free 
people of color and their descendants, and none others. Under 
this impression, it at once received the sanction and countenance 
of many of the humane, the wise, and the patriotic among us. 
Auxiliary societies were formed in our own State, and the num- 
bers, the influence, and the resources of the Society, were daily 
increased. It is now ascertained that this impression was false ; 
and its officers, and your Committee believe the Society itself, 
now boldly and fearlessly avow, that its object is, and ever has 
been, to remove the whole colored population of the Union to 
another land ; and to effect this object, so wild, fanatical, and 
destructive in itself, they ask, that the general fund, to which the 
slave holding States have so largely contributed, should be ap- 
propriated for a purpose so especially ruinous to the prosperity, 
importance, and political strength, of the southern States. 

That the people of the south, at the time of the adoption of the 
Constitution, considered not only the retention, but the increase 
of the slave population, to be all-important to the welfare and 
interest of their States, is manifest from a reservation in that in- 
strument itself, which, it cannot be doubted, was inserted on their 
express requisition. * * * What was the motive of those 
people in insisting upon the reservation of the right to make such 
importation for twenty years? Unquestionably to increase that 
species of population. Why increase it? Because they believed 
it to be essential to the improvement, welfare, and prosperity of 
their section of the country ; and upon the numbers of which, by 
another provision of the Constitution, the weight of the southern 
States in the general council in part depended. If such were the 
motive, and what other could there have been for the insertion of 
that reservation, can it be believed that those very people meant, 



20 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 2 I2 

by another clause, to give to Congress the power to appropriate 
money out to the common fund to which they were so largely to 
contribute, for the purpose of again removing that very popula- 
tion, the right to increase which was so carefully reserved ; that 
they insisted upon retaining the right to import Africans, merely 
again, and in part at their own expense, to re-export them to the 
shore from whence they had been brought ! Yet such would be 
the effect of the constructive power contended for. 

Your committee cannot avoid reprobating the cold-blooded 
selfishness, or unthinking zeal, which actuates many of our fellow- 
citizens in other states, to an interference with our local concerns 
and domestic relations, totally unwarranted either by humanity 
or constitutional right. Such interference is becoming every day 
more determined and more alarming. It commenced with a 
few unthinking zealots, who formed themselves into abolition 
societies ; was seized upon by more cunning and designing men 
for political purposes ; and is now supported by more than one 
of the States, as it is evident from the amendments of the Con- 
stitution proposed by legislative bodies, and so frequently, and 
indeed insultingly presented for our approbation. The result of 
such interference, if persevered in, is awful and inevitable. The 
people of Georgia know and strongly feel the advantages of the 
federal Union. As members of that Union, they are proud of its 
greatness — as children born under that Union, they love it with 
filial affection — as parties of that Union, they will ever defend it 
from foes, internal or external ; but they cannot, and will not, 
even for the preservation of that Union, permit their rights to be 
assailed — they will not permit their property to be rendered 
worthless — they will not permit their wives and their children to 
be driven as wanderers into strange lands — they will not permit 
their country to be made waste and desolate, " by those who 
come among us under the cloak of a time-serving and hypocritical 
benevolence." But how is this increasing evil to be met and 
remedied? Nothing can be hoped from remonstrance — the 
judicial tribunals of the Union cannot reach it — our own Legis- 
lature can by no enactment prevent it. How, then, is this evil 



2 1 3] GEORGIA ON THE COLONIZATION SOCIETY 2 I 

to be remedied ? Only by a firm and determined union of the 
people and the States of the south, declaring, through their legis- 
lative bodies, in a voice which must be heard, that they are ready 
and willing to make any sacrifice, rather than submit longer to 
such ruinous interference ; and warning their enemies that they 
are unwittingly preparing a mine, which once exploded,, will lay 
our much-loved country in one common ruin. Your committee 
hope that such a calamity is yet far distant, and that there is still 
remaining in the Congress of the Union sufficient discretion, in- 
telligence, and patriotism, to avert it altogether. With that hope, 
they deem it unnecessary now to do more than to recommend 
the adoption of the following resolutions : 

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
State of Georgia, in General Assembly met, That the Congress of 
the United States have no constitutional power to appropriate 
moneys to aid the American Colonization Society, or for objects 
to effect which that Society was established ; and that this Legis- 
lature, representing the feelings and will of the people, and the 
sovereignty of the State of Georgia ; in the name and in behalf 
of the State of Georgia, denying the right, solemnly protest 
against the exercise or any attempt to exercise such unconstitu- 
tional power, by the Congress of the United States. 

■jfc ¥fc t}t t£ ^r ifc %: 

And be it further resolved, That a copy of the above report and 
resolutions be forwarded to the Governor of each slave-holding 
State of the Union, with a request that the same shall be laid 
before the respective Legislatures, asking their concurrence in 
such constitutional mode, as to them shall seem best, to prevent 
the exercise of such power by the Congress of the United States. 

[Senate Doc, 20 Cong. y 1 sess., Ill, No. 81.] 



22 STATE DOCUMENTS [214 

The South on the Abolition Question. 
1831-1839. 

The activity of the new type of Abolitionists, especially after the establish- 
ment of "The Liberator," Jan. 1, 1831, and the excitement caused by the Nat. 
Turner insurrection in Southampton County, Virginia, in Aug., 1831, com- 
bined to arouse general apprehension throughout the South. (For insurrec- 
tion, see Higginson in Atlantic Monthly, VIII, 173-187; Williams, History 
of the Negro Race in America, II, 85-92.) Already in the Virginia Constitu- 
tional Convention of 1829, the subject of emancipation and of slave represen- 
tation had been discussed. (Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State 
Convention of 18 *2g-jo, passim; Thorpe, Const. Hist. Amer. People, I, chs. 
xiv, xv, passim?) In view of the recent insurrection, the Virginia Legislature 
of 1831-32, discussed gradual emancipation and colonization as remedies, and 
the institution of slavery was severely condemned by several of the speakers. 
(See speeches of Philip A. Boiling, Thomas Marshall, John A. Chandler, 
Henry Berry, Thomas J. Randolph, and James M'Dowell, Jr., in the House of 
Delegates. Each printed separately [Richmond, 1832]; Niles, XLIII, 23; 
Wilson, I, ch. xiv; Curtis, II, 250-253; Von Hoist, II, 90-95.) But a reac- 
tion set in and no legislation of this character followed. 

Gov. Floyd of Va. in his message, Dec. 6, 1831, charged the recent insurrec- 
tion as being instigated by the Abolitionists. {Niles, XLI, 350, 351.) The 
accusation was repeated in other states. See message of Governor of La. 
(Ibid., 314, 315.) Georgia appropriated $5,000 for the arrest and trial of the 
editor of "The Liberator." (Acts of G a., 1831, 255. For similar action of 
Miss, see Niles, XLIX, 39.) The Legislature of Alabama appears to have 
been the first to adopt a report and resolutions, Jan. 21, 1832, relative "to 
the suppression of publications of an incendiary nature in other States." 
(Act of Ala., 1831-32, 116, 117.) 

The establishment of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833, the con- 
tinued efforts of the Abolitionists to circulate their publications in the Scuth, 
and the increase in the number of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia led to a general demand on the part of the South for the 
suppression of abolition publications and societies. Already during the sum- 
mer of 1835 tne rising of the mails at Charleston, S. C, and the remarkable 
correspondence of Postmaster-General Kendall had aroused national interest. 
(Niles, XLVIII, 447, 448; XLIX, 7-9.) President Jackson in his message 
of Dec. 2, 1835, recommended legislation to prohibit the circulation through 
the mails of incendiary publications. (Richardson, III, 175, 176.) A bill 
reported by Calhoun was defeated in the Senate, apparently on constitutional 
grounds by a vote of 25 to 19. (See Report and Speech of Calhoun, Works, 
II. 5°9-533; V, 190-208.) 

The Governors of several of the Southern States devoted a large part of 



215] THE SCUTH 0N THE AE0L1TI0N QUESTION 23 

their annual messages of 1835 to tne Abolitionists. For the celebrated mes- 
sage of Gov. McDuffie of S. C, see Jour, of the General Assembly, 1835, 4 _IC ; 
reprinted in Amer. Hist. Leaflels,No. 10; Message of 1836, Jour, of General 
Assembly, 1836, 9-12; Gov. Gayle of Ala., Jour, of Alabama House of Rep., 
1835, 12-14; reprinted in Gulf States Hist. Mag., II, 29-34; for documents 
in connection with the demand for the extradition of Robert G. Williams, 
editor of " The Emancipator," and the refusal of Gov. Marcy of N. Y., see 
Ibid., 28, 29; Niles, XLIX, 290, 358-360; Messages of Govs. Schley of Ga., 
and Swain of N. C., are in Niles, XLIX, 187, 228. The Legislatures of seven 
of the states during the session of 1835-36, adopted reports and resolutions 
vigorously pretesting, and demanding Northern legislation. Those of South 
Carolina, Dec. 16, are given as typical. Acts and Res. of S. C, 1835, 26-28; 
North Carolina, Dec. 19, Acts of N. C. Sess. of 1835, 119-121; Georgia, Dec. 
22, Acts of Ga., 1835, 2 97-3 00 ; Alabama, Jan. 9, Acts of Ala., 1835-36, 174, 
175; Senate Doc, 24 Cong. 1 sess., II, No. 124; Virginia, Feb. 16, Acts of Va , 
J ^3S~3^y 395> 396; Senate Doc, III, No. 233; Mississippi, Feb. 27; Laws 
of Mississippi, J an.-Feb., 1839, 101-103; Kentucky, March 1, Acts of Ky., 
l8 35~3 6 , 683-686; Senate Doc, III, No. 249. The texts of all the above 
are in the Jour, of the Senate of Penna., 1835-36, II; several are also 
in Niles, XLIX, 245, 309, 318, 319, 362, 363. Later resolutions were passed 
by Louisiana, Feb. 20, 1837, Acts of La., 1837, 18, 10, and by Missouri, Feb. 
12, 1839, Laws of Mo., 1838-39, 337, ^S. The former proposed " a conven- 
tion composed of delegates of the slave-holding States," " to enquire into and 
determine on the best possible means to obtain ' peaceably if they can, forci- 
bly if they must,' that respect for their institutions to which they are entitled 
by the positive enactments of the Federal compact, and by the stronger law 
of self-preservation." 

General references: Channing and Hart, Guide, §§ 187, 188; Von Hoist, 
II, ch. ii; Wilson, I, esp. chs. xiii, xiv, xxiv; Greeley, I, 1 07-1 17, 122-125; 
Burgess, ch. xi; McMaster, VI, ch. lvi; Schouler, IV, 203-224; Benton, 
Thirty Years' View, I, 576-588, 609, 610; Garrison, Garrison, I, chs. vii, viii, 
ix, xii, xiv; II, ch. ii; Schurz, Clay, II, 69-78; Von Hoist, Calhoun, 134-150; 
Smith, I, 41-45; Jay, Misc. Writings, 125 et sea.; Hart, Contemporaries, III, 
Nos. 169, 174, 175, 180; Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 413, 414; 
Bryant and Gay, United States, IV, ch. xiii. 



24 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 2 i6 

1 08. Resolutions of South Carolina. 

December 16, 1835. 

The present condition of the slave question in the states of this 
confederacy, presents one of the most extraordinary spectacles 
which, your committee will venture to assert, has ever challanged 
the notice of the civilized world. We see sovereign states united 
by a common league, in about one-half of which states the insti- 
tution of slavery not only exists, but its legal existence is solemnly 
recognized and guaranteed by their compact of union. Yet in 
the face of this compact, and the clear and distinct admission that 
the non-slaveholding states have not the slightest right, either 
constitutionally or otherwise, to interfere with this institution, the 
most incendiary associations are tolerated or permitted to exist 
within their limits, the object and ends of which not only strike 
at the prosperity and happiness of eleven states in the confeder- 
acy, but at their very social existence. 

Painful as it may be, it is impossible to disguise the fact, that 
this is a condition of things which cannot, in the long run, be 
permitted to exist. Every wise instinct of self-preservation for- 
bids it. Let it be admitted, that the three millions of free white 
inhabitants in the slave- holding states are amply competent to hold 
in secure and pacific subjection the two millions of slaves, which, 
by the inscrutable dispensations of Providence, have been placed 
under our dominion. Let it be admitted, that, by reason of an 
efficient police and judicious internal legislation, we may render 
abortive the designs of the fanatic and incendiary within our own 
limits, and that the torrent of pamphlets and tracts which the 
abolition presses of the north are pouring forth with an inexhausti- 
ble copiousness, is arrested the moment it reaches our frontier. 
Are we to wait until our enemies have built up, by the grossest 
misrepresentations and falsehoods, a body of public opinion 
against us, which it would be almost impossible to resist, without 
separating ourselves from the social system of the rest of the 
civilized world ? Or are we to sit down content, because from 
our own vigilance and courage the torch of the incendiary and 



217] RESOLUTIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA 25 

the dagger of the midnight assassin may never be applied ? This 
is impossible. No people can live in a state of perpetual excite- 
ment and apprehension, although real danger may be long de- 
ferred. Such a condition of the public mind is destructive of all 
social happiness, and consequently must prove essentially injuri- 
ous to the prosperity of a community that has the weakness to 
suffer under a perpetual panic. This would be true, if the causes 
of this excitement proceeded from the external hostility of a 
foreign nation. But how infinitely interesting and momentous 
the consideration becomes, when they flow from the acts and 
doings of citizens of states, with whom we are not only in amity, 
but to whom we are bound by the strongest bonds of common 
union, which was framed to promote the happiness, peace, 
security, and protection of all. 

We have, therefore, a claim on the governments of the non- 
slave-holding states, not only moral and social, but of indispensible 
constitutional obligation, that this nuisance shall be abated. They 
not only owe it to us, but they owe it to themselves, to that 
union, at whose shrine they have so often offered up the highest 
pledges by which man can plight his temporal faith. * * * * 

Your committee are aware, that it has been said, that no legis- 
lation can be adapted to arrest the proceedings of the abolition- 
ists by the non-slaveholding states, without violating the great 
principles of the liberty of the press. We consider that this 
objection rests on no just foundation. There is certainly some 
difference between the freedom of discussion, and the liberty to 
deluge a friendly and coterminous state with seditious and incen- 
diary tracts, pamphlets and pictorial representations, calculated 
to excite a portion of its population to revolt, rapine and blood- 
shed. We would fain believe, that the northern liberty of the 
press, would never be construed into a liberty, to lay the south in 
ashes. Under a law honestly passed to meet this crime against 
society, and treason against the Union, the whole circumstances 
of the case, and the quo animo of the offender might be left to a 
jury to determine like any other criminal issue, and if we are to 
believe in the condition of public opinion, as recently exhibited 
in most of the non-skveholding state?, we are far from thinking 
that such legislation would be a mere dead letter. 



26 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 2 ig 

South Carolina will not anticipate the crisis, which must be 
presented by a refusal on the part of the non-slaveholding states, 
to accord to us the protection of such legislation, or such other 
means, as they may select for the suppression of the evils of which 
we complain, for she will not doubt the good faith and amity of 
her sister states. She desires to live in peace and harmony in 
this Union. In the assertion of her rights and in preferring her 
claims to be secure in the enjoyment of her property, under the 
compact, she desires to act in entire concert with those states, 
whose interests are identical with her own. She is, however, 
prepared to do her duty to herself and posterity, under all and 
every possible conjuncture of circumstances. 

In conclusion, your committee, desirous of making a matter of 
record, both of our rights, and the assertion of the just expecta- 
tion that they will be respected by those who are united with us 
in the bonds of a common union, beg leave to offer the following 
resolutions, for the adoption of both branches of the Legislature. 

i. Resolved, That the formation of the abolition societies, and 
the acts and doings of certain fanatics, calling themselves aboli- 
tionists, in the non-slaveholding states of this confederacy, are in 
direct violation of the obligations of the compact of union, dis- 
social, and incendiary in the extreme. 

2. Resolved, That no state having a just regard for her own 
peace and security can acquiesce in a state of things by which 
such conspiracies are engendered within the limits of a friendly 
state, united to her by the bonds of a common league of political 
association, without either surrendering or compromitting her 
most essential rights. 

3. Resolved, That the Legislature of South Carolina, having 
every confidence in the justice and friendship of the non-slave- 
holding states, announces to her co-states her confident expecta- 
tion, and she- earnestly requests that the governments of these 
states will promptly and effectually suppress all those associations 
within their respective limits, purporting to be abolition societies, 
and that they will make it highly penal to print, publish and dis- 
tribute newspapers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial representations 
calculated and having an obvious tendency to excite the slaves of 
the southern states to insurrection and revolt. 



2I q] RESOLUTIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA 2 J 

4. Resolved, That, regarding the domestic slavery of the south- 
ern states as a subject exclusively within the control of each of 
the said states, we shall consider every interference, by any other 
state or the general government, as a direct and unlawful inter- 
ference, to be resisted at once, and under every possible circum- 
stance. 

5. Resolved, In order that a salutary negative may be put en 
the mischievous, and unfounded assumption of some of the 
abolitionists — the non-slaveholding states are requested to disclaim 
by legislative declaration, all right, either on the part of them- 
selves or the government of the United States, to interfere in any 
manner with domestic slavery, either in the states, or in the 
territories where it exists. 

6. Resolved, That we should consider the abolition of slavery 
in the District of Columbia, as a violation of the rights of the 
citizens of that District, derived from the implied conditions on 
which that territory was ceded to the general government, and as 
an usurpation to be at once resisted as nothing more than the 
commencement of a scheme of much more extensive and flagrant 
injustice. 

7. Resolved, That the legislature of South Carolina, regards 
with decided approbation, the measures of security adopted by 
the Post Office Department of the United States, in relation to 
the transmission of incendiary tracts. But if this highly essential 
and protective policy, be counteracted by congress, and the 
United States mail becomes a vehicle for the transmission of the 
mischievous documents, with which it was recently freighted, we, 
in this contingency, expect that the Chief Magistrate of our state, 
will forthwith call the legislature together, that timely measures 
may be taken to prevent its traversing our territory. [Resolutions 
of transmission.] 

[Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina, Dec. /8jj f 26-28.] 



2 8 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 2 20 

Reply of the Northern States. 
1836-1839. 

The Governors of several of the Northern States commented favorably upon 
these resolutions, especially Governors Marcy, of New York, and Everett, of 
Mass., in their messages of January, 1836. (Greeley, I, 124; Resolves of 
Mass.) 1835-36, 296-298.) Gov. Ritner, of Pennsylvania, alone took an un- 
compromising stand for freedom of speech and the press. {Papers of the 
Governor, VI, 250, 290-292.) None of the states enacted the legislation de- 
sired, but a few passed resolutions similar to the following adopted by New 
York. See Laws of Ohio, Local, 1835-36,657; Reports and Resolutions of 
Maine, 1836, 47-50; Laws of New Hamp., 1836-37, 228, 229; Laws of Lnd., 
1838-39, 353; Senate Doc, 25 Cong., 3 sess., Ill, No. 209; Mies, LVI, 15, 66; 
LVII, 378. In contrast to these, Vermont, Nov. 16, 1836, asserted "that 
neither Congress nor the state governments have any constitutional right to 
abridge the full expression of opinions or the transmission of them through 
the public mail." Acts of Vt., 1836, 44; Niles, LI, 210. Also see post, p. 221. 



109. New York in Reply to the South. 

May 23, 1836. 

Resolved unanimously, That the views and sentiments contained 
in the late annual message of the governor of this state, recogniz- 
ing the constitutional right of the several states of the union, to 
regulate and control within their own limits, the relations of 
master and slave, and to continue or abolish the same as the 
governments of those states may respectively deem consistent 
with their duty, safety and welfare, meet the full and cordial 
concurrence of this legislature. 

Resolved, That the people of this state, by responding with un- 
exampled unanimity, to those views and sentiments, and mani- 
festing their determination to abstain from, and to discountenance 
those political agitations and public discussions of the subject of 
domestic slavery, which were calculated to produce an exciting, 
an improper and a pernicious influence within the limits of other 
states, have given to the Union stronger guarantees than law 
could furnish, and rendered present legislation upon the subject 
by their representatives unnecessary and inexpedient. [Resolu- 
tion of transmission.] 

[Laws of New York, 1836. 811, 812.] 



22 1 ] SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2 Q 

Slavery in the District of Columbia and the Right of 

Petition. 
1836-1844. 

As early as Jan. 23, 1829, the legislature of Penna. had adopted resolutions 
for the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia {Laws 
of Penna., 1828-29, 371, 372; Nile*, XXXV, 363. Vote, House, 81 to 8; 
Senate, 24 to 4), and the New York Assembly had passed the measure in the 
same year. (Jay, 160, 215,) The subject was debated in Congress, in 1829, 
and the Committee on the District reported adversely. {Debates of Cong., 20 
Cong., 2 sess., 167, 175-187, 191; Reports of Committees, No. 60.) No further 
resolutions from the Northern States on this subject appear until the denial of 
the right in the resolutions of the Southern States in 1835-36. Ante, p. 214. 
Vermont led the way in reasserting this right of Congress in connection with 
her declaration on the freedom of the mails. Ante, p. 220. 

The increase in the number of petitions on this subject finally led to both 
houses of Congress adopting rules or practices restricting the right of petition 
for the abolition of slavery during the period 1 836-1 844. These so-called 
11 gag rules " not only caused a great increase in the petitions, but also called 
out resolutions from the legislatures of several of the Northern States protest- 
ing against the " gag rules," and either asserting the right or praying for the 
abolition of slavery in the District, as follows: 1837, Mass., Vt.; 1838, Mass., 
Ct., Vt.; 1839, Vt. : 1840, N. Y., Mass.; 1842 and 1843, Vt Acts of Vermont, 
1836, 53; Ibid., 1837, 108; Ibid., 1838, 23; Ibid., 1839, 20; Ibid., 1841, 33; 
Ibid., 1842, 97; Res. of Mass., 1835-38, 559, 560, 734~73 6 > 742-743; Md.* 
1839-42, 262, 264; Res. and Private Acts of Conn., 1838, 24-26; House Ex. 
Doc, 25 Cong., 2 sess., X, Nos. 408 and 415; Laws of A T ew York, 1840, 349; 
Niles, LII, 87, 150; LIII, 296, 297, 324; LIV, 236; LV, 351. The resolu- 
tions of Mass. of 1837 an d New York of 1840, as typical of this class, are 
given below. 

Great excitement and an extended debate was caused by the presentation 
of the Vermont resolution in the Senate in Dec, 1837. See Calhoun's reso- 
lution and speech, Cong. Globe, 25 Cong., 2 sess., 39, 55, 107-109; Works, III, 
140-202; also earlier speeches on abolition petitions and defence of slavery, 
Works, II, 465-490, 625-633. For the speech of Slade, of Vt., in the House, 
and "the secession" of the southern members, Dec. 20, 1837, see Cong. 
Globe, 41, 45, 46; Adams, Memoirs, IX, 450-455. The legislature of Louisi- 
ana adopted resolutions, Jan. 9, 1838, thanking "that portion of the southern 
delegation who withdrew from the floor of Congress rather than suffer in their 
presence a debate on the abolition of slavery in the south. " Acts of La., 1838, 
14, 15. Ohio, Feb. 12, 1842, adopted resolutions censuring J. Q. Adams for 
presenting the Haverhill petition, but rescinded the same, Feb. 27, 1045. 
Laws of Ohio, 1841-42, 213; Ibid., 1844-45, 444* 

General References: Tremain, Slavery in the District of Columbia, ch. iv; 



30 STATE DOCUMENTS [ 22 2 

Von Hoist, II, 235-291, 467-484; Wilson, I, chs. xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxx, 
passim; Greeley, I, 142-147; Burgess. 252-270; McMaster, VI, chs. lx; 
Schouler, IV, 224-229, 296-302, 423-427; Benton, I, 609-623; Morse, J. Q. 
Adams, 243-289; Von Hoist, Calhoun, 165-180; Jenkins, Calhoun, 328-336, 
379-385; Peck, The Jacksonian Epoch, 373-391 ; Lalor, III, 167-169; Jay, 
347-35 1; 379-408; Bryant & Gay, IV, 339~340- 



1 10. Resolutions of the Legislature of Massachusetts. 

April 12, 1837. 

Whereas, the house of representatives of the United States, in 
the month of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
hundred and thirty-seven, did adopt a resolution, whereby it was 
ordered that all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions or 
papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the sub- 
ject of slavery, or to the abolition of slavery, without being either 
printed or referred, should be laid upon the table, and that no 
further action whatever should be had thereon; and whereas, 
such a disposition of petitions, then or thereafter to be received, 
was a virtual denial of the right itself; and whereas, by the reso- 
lution aforesaid, which was adopted by a standing rule of the 
aforesaid house of representatives, the petitions of a large number 
of the people of this Commonwealth, praying for the removal of 
a great social, moral and political evil, have been slighted and 
contemned : therefore, 

Resolved, That the resolution above named is an assumption 
of power and authority at variance with the spirit and intent of 
the constitution of the United States, and injurious to the cause 
of freedom and free institutions ; that it does violence to the in- 
herent, absolute and inalienable rights of man ; and that it tends 
essentially to impair those fundamental principles of natural 
justice and natural law which are antecedent to any written con- 
stitutions of government, independent of them all, and essential 
to the security of freedom in a state. 1 

^'he Massachusetts resolutions of March 21, 1840, characterized the prac- 
tice of the Senate as " a procedure not less despotic, in effect, than the uncon- 
stitutional rule adopted by the House." 



223] NEW YORK ON THE RIGHT OF PETITION ?,l 

Resolved, That our senators and representatives in Congress, in 
maintaining and advocating the full right of petition, have entitled 
themselves to the cordial approbation of the people of this 
Commonwealth. 

Resolved, That Congress, having exclusive legislation in the 
District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in, the 
said District) and that its exercise should only be restrained by 
a regard to the public good. 

[Resolves of Massachusetts, 1835-38, 559, 560.] 



in. Resolutions of New York on the Rights of Pe- 
tition. 

February 16, 1840. 
Resolved, That the vote and decision of the house of rep- 
resentatives of the United States, on the twenty-eighth day 
of January last, by which that house refused to receive there- 
after, or in any manner act upon, any petition relating to 
slavery in the United States, are, in the opinion and judgment of 
this legislature, a denial of the common right of any and every 
citizen of this country to be heard by their representatives upon any 
and every subject upon which they may think proper respectfully 
to address them, and are, moreover, a violation of the common 
and natural right of every human being to address his prayers for 
aid to those who have the power to afford protection and relief; 
and an open and direct infringement of the constitution of the 
United States, and of the principles of the declaration of inde- 
pendence. 

Resolved, That this legislature has seen with deep regret, that 
certain representatives from the state of New York, voted with 
the majority for the adoption of the rule of the house of repre- 
sentatives, by which the right of petition is denied, and without 
whose votes the rule aforesaid could not have been adopted. 

[Laws of New York, 1840. 349.] 



j 2 STATE DOCUMENTS [224 

Annexation of Texas. 
1837-1845. 

The resolutions relating to the annexation of Texas fall into the two periods 
of this movement, namely, 1837-38 and 1841-45. In the first period the fol- 
lowing Southern States passed resolutions in favor : Kentucky, Jan. 24, 1837; 
South Carolina, Dec. 19, 1837; Alabama, Dec. 25, 1837; Tennessee, Jan. 20, 
1838, while several of the Northern States adopted resolutions against, viz: 
Vermont, Nov. 1, 1837, O ct - sess - I ^3^; Rhode Island, Oct. sess. 1837; 
Ohio, Feb. 23, 1838; Massachusetts, March 16, 1838; Michigan, April 2, 
1838; Conn., May sess. 1838. Those of Vermont of 1837, Alabama and Miss- 
issippi, are given as typical of the two classes. With the revival of the move- 
ment in 1841-42, Vermont again led the opposition, in which it was joined in 
the years 1842-45 by the legislatures of Mass., Conn., Ohio, N. J., Del. and 
R. I., while Alabama, Tenn., Miss., S. C, Mo. and La., zealously advocated 
annexation, and this project received the endorsement of Maine, New Hamp- 
shire and 111. Several of the legislatures repeatedly adopted resolutions in 
advocacy of their position. Those of South Carolina and Mass. follow. 

An address warning the country of the revival of the project of annexation 
was issued March 3, 1843, DV thirteen anti-slavery members of the 27th Con- 
gress. It quoted from a significant report of the legislature of Mississippi, 
given below. 1 (Niles, LXIV, 173, 174; Greeley, I, 157, 158.) For popular 
movement in favor of " Texas or Disunion," and a Southern Convention in 
parts of the South in 1844-45, see Nifes, LXVI and LXVII Index under 
" Soul/iem Convention" 

References : For text of resolutions see Session Laws of the several States, 
also the Senate Doc., and the House Exec, Doc, for the following Congresses, 
25 Cong. 2 sess., 27 Cong. 2 sess., 28 Cong. I sess., 28 Cong. 2 sess., 29 Cong. 
I sess. Niles, LXVII, 278, 281, 282, 346, 371. Channing and Hart, Guide, 
§ 193; MacDonald, 343-346; Von Hoist, II, ch. vii; III, ch. iii; Wilson, I, 
chs. xlii-xlv; Greeley, I, 147-175; Burgess, chs. xiii, xv; Benton, II, chs. 24, 
135. 138-142,148; McMaster, VI, ch. lx; Schouler, IV, 303-307, 440-459, 
476-487; Garrison, Garrison, III, ch. v; Tyler, Tyler, chs. ix-xii; Von Hoist, 
Calhoun, ch. viii; Thorpe, United States, II, 415-420; Thorpe, Amer. People, 
I, 336-340, notes; Greeley, Slavery Extension or Restriction, 31-44; Rhodes, 

1. 75-85- 

1 This report has hot been found in any official document. From the context it would ap^ 
pear to have been drawn in 1837-38; if so, it was not adopted by the legislature as no resolves 
on Texas are given in the Laws of Miss., until Feb. 25, 1842. This report may have been 
prepared in 1842, but no report is published with these resolves. Laws of Miss., 1842, 257; 
Senate Doc, 27 Cong., 2 sess., IV, No. 277. 



225] MISSISSIPPI ON ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 33 

112. Resolution of Vermont. 

November 1, 1837. 
i. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That 
our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives 
be requested to use their influence in that body to prevent the 
annexation of Texas to the Union. 

2. Resolved, That representing as we do the People of Ver- 
mont, we do, hereby, in their name, solemnly protest against 
such annexation in any form. 

3. Resolved, That as the Representatives of the People of Ver- 
mont, we do solemnly protest against the admission into this 
Union, of any State whose constitution tolerates domestic slavery. 

4. Resolved, That Congress have full power by the constitution, 
to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia 
and in the Territories of the United States. 

5. Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed and 
our Representatives requested to present the foregoing Report 
and Resolutions to their respective Houses in Congress, and to 
use their influence to carry the same speedily into effect. 

\_Acts of Vermont, Oct. Session, 1837, 6o»] 



113. Report of the Legislature of Mississippi on 
Annexation of Texas. 

Session of 1837. l 
* * * But we hasten to suggest the importance of the an- 
nexation of Texas to this republic upon grounds somewhat local 
in their complexion, but of an import infinitely grave and interest- 
ing to the people who inhabit the Southern portion of this con- 
federacy, where it is known that a species of domestic slavery is 
tolerated and protected by law, whose existence is prohibited by 
the legal regulations of other states of this confederacy ; which 
system of slavery is held by all, who are familiarly acquainted 
with its practical effects, to be of highly beneficial influence to the 
country within whose limits it is permitted to exist. 

1 See note ante, p. 224. 



34 STATE DOCUMENTS [226 

The Committee feel authorized to say that this system is cher- 
ished by our constitutents as the very palladium of their prosper- 
ity and happiness ; and, whatever ignorant fanatics may elsewhere 
conjecture, the Committee are fully assured, upon the most 
dilligent observation and reflection upon the subject, that the 
south does not possess within her limits a blessing with which the 
affections of her people are so closely entwined and so completely 
enfibered, and whose value is more highly appreciated, than that 
which we are now considering. * * * 

It may not be improper here to remark that, during the last 
session of Congress, when a Senator from Mississippi proposed 
the acknowledgment of Texan independence, it was found with 
few exceptions, the members of that body were ready to take 
ground upon it as upon the subject of slavery itself, * * * 

We sincerely hope there is enough good sense and genuine 
love of country among our fellow-countrymen of the Northern 
States to secure us final justice on this subject; yet we can not 
consider it safe or expedient for the people of the South to 
entirely disregard the efforts of the fanatics, and the efforts of 
such men as Webster 1 , and others who countenance such danger- 
ous doctrines. 

The northern states have no interests of their own which re- 
quire any special safeguards for their defense, save only their 
domestic manufacture ; and Cod knows they have already re- 
ceived protections from the government on a most liberal scale ; 
under which encouragement they have improved and flourished 
beyond example. The South has very peculiar interests to pre- 
serve, — interests already violently assailed and boldly threatened. 

Your Committee are fully persuaded that this protection to her 
best interests will be afforded by the annexation of Texas ; an 
equipoise of influence in the halls of Congress will be secured, 
which will furnish us a permanent guarantee of protection. 

files' Register, LXIV, 173, 174.] 

1 In a part of the report omitted reference had been made to Webster's 
speech in New York, March 15, 1837. See Works, I, 354-357. 



227] RESOLUTIONS OF ALABAMA 35 

114. Preamble and Resolutions of Alabama. 

December 25, 1837. 

The General Assembly of the State of Alabama have witnessed, 
with feelings of deep mortification, the course pursued by a few 
citizens of the United States, in opposition to the admission- of 
the republic of Texas into the Federal Union. 

Professing, as we have, friendship for civil liberty, and a devo- 
tion to the holy cause of freedom in every clime, it was to have 
been hoped that no voice would be heard among us, to rebuke 
an application from Texas for admission into this boasted asylum 
from oppression. * * * 

As far as it can be brought to bear upon the question in a con- 
stitutional or political point of view, precedents are not wanting, 
if justice could require or yield to precedent, which will sustain 
fully the advocates of the annexation of Texas. We refer to the 
acquisition of Louisiana, during the administration of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, and to the still more recent annexation of Florida, during 
the administration of Mr. Monroe. The inhabitants of those 
countries were not admitted into the Union at their own solicita- 
tion, but without their formal consent ; they were purchased of their 
royal and imperial masters with our common treasure, and, together 
with their soil, their religion, their language, their household goods, 
were brought within the pale of our General Government. How 
different, in many respects, is the case with the republic of Texas? 
Upon the unanimous application of her brave and chivalrous 
citizens, who may be said to be " bone of our bone, and flesh of 
our flesh," she seeks, "without money and without price," from 
us, to obtain shelter and protection under the ample folds of our 
Federal banner. Is there, in the whole length and breadth of our 
land, a friend of liberty, a lover of justice, or even a mere philan- 
thropist, who can hesitate for one moment in the decision of this 
question? 

There are some, it is to be apprehended and regretted, who 
view this subject alone through the dim and deceptive medium of 
sectional party feelings. We cannot consent to be influenced by 
such sordid and circumscribed motives. * * * 



36 STATE DOCUMENTS [228 

The solid and everlasting foundation on which our political 
fathers sought to establish justice, to insure domestic peace, to 
form a perfect Union of our States, and to perpetuate the bless- 
ings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, was a well-regu- 
lated balance of governmental and territorial power. Since the 
formation of the constitution, the northeast, the north, and the 
northwest have increased more rapidly in numerical power of 
States and population, then the south and southwest. It needs 
but a glance at the map to satisfy the most superficial observer, 
that an over-balance is produced by the extreme northeast, 
which as regards territory, would be happily corrected and 
couter-balanced by the annexation of Texas. And when it is 
recollected, too, that the very territory which it is now proposed 
to acquire, was once within the scope of a just claim of our Gen- 
eral Government, extending to the Rio del Norte, and that it 
was bartered for a mess of porridge by a prime-mover of the 
present opposition to its re-acquisition, 1 there remains no pretext 
for a subterfuge, under which the adversaries of annexation can 
hope to disguise the covert designs which, there is much reason 
to fear, prompted the exchange of our claims in Texas for the 
unappropriated portions of Florida, consisting mainly of barren 
sands and poisonous everglades. * * * 

1. Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the State of Alabama in General Assembly convened, That the 
overture on the part of the republic of Texas, for annexation to 
the United States of America, ought to be met by the Federal 
authorities in the most friendly manner, and should be accepted 
as soon as it can be done without a violation of our honor as a 
nation, or any principle of international law. 

2. And be it further resolved, That our Senators in Congress be 
instructed, and our Representatives requested, to urge and sus- 
tain the foregoing views on all proper occasions. 

[Acts of Alabama, 1837, 129-131.] 
1 This refers to John Quincy Adams, but the charge of course was groundless. 



229] MASSACHUSETTS ON ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 37 

115. South Carolina Declares Annexation Essential. 

December 18, 1844. 

Resolved, That the State of South Carolina takes the deepest 
interest in the annexation of Texas to this Federal Union, because 
we believe it essential to preserve the peace and permanent inde- 
pendence of the Confederacy, and must result in advancing 
prosperity of the whole country. 

Resolved, That collateral issues, which have arisen in the pro- 
gress of the Texas negotiations, by the official communication of 
Lord Aberdeen to the Federal Government, dated December 26, 
1843, 1 in which he announces that Great Britain desires, and is 
constantly exerting herself to procure the "general abolition of 
slavery throughout the world," are of such a nature as to make 
the annexation of Texas a vital and permanent question to the 
people of South Carolina. 

Resolved, That we look with confidence to the recent election 
of a Republican President and Vice-President as giving us a guar- 
antee that all the constitutional powers of the government will be 
exerted to secure the immediate annexation of that Republic. 
[Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina, 1844, 187.] 



Massachusetts' Opposition to the Annexation of Texas. 

1843-1845. 

The state of Massachusetts took a very prominent part in opposing the an- 
nexation project. It passed resolves March 17, 1843, March 15, 1844, Feb. 
22, and March 26, 1845. {Acts and Res. of Mass., 1843-45, 68, 319, 320, 558- 
599, 651-653.) The two series which are given below are of especial interest 
as presenting a view similar to that taken by the same state in opposition to 
the annexation of Louisiana in 1803, and again in 1811-13 (Ante, pp. 65-68), 
as well as for their strong assertion of state rights. A similar constitutional 
position was taken by the Legislatures of Vt., Ohio, Del. and Conn, at this 
same time, and Maryland declared that annexation by joint resolution would 
be a flagrant violation of the Constitution on the very day that measure was 
approved, March I, 1845. (Acts and Res. of Vt., Oct. sess., 1845, 3^; Laws 
of Ohio, 1844-45, 437 > Laws of Del., 1845, 9°> 9 l '> ^ es - and Private act of 

1 See Calhoun's reply to this communication, Works, V, 333-339. 



38 STATE DOCUMENTS [230 

Conn., May s ess. , 1845, 2I > Laws of Md., 1844-45, Res - No. 2 5« See C. F. 
Adams, Texas and the Mass. Resolutions. An Anti-Texas Convention was 
held in Mass. Jan. 29, 1845, Niles, LXVII, 363-367; also another in the fall 
of 1845. Ibid. % L1X, 178; Wilson, I, 622, ch. xlv. 



116. Massachusetts on the Annexation of Texas. 

March 15, 1844. 

i. Resolved, That the power to unite an independent foreign 
state with the United States is not among the powers delegated 
to the general government by the constitution of the United 
States. 

2. Resolved, That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, faith- 
ful to the compact between the people of the United States, 
according to the plain meaning and intent in which it was under- 
stood and acceded to by them, is sincerely anxious for its preser- 
vation, but that it is determined, as it doubts not the other states 
are, to submit to undelegated powers in no body of men on 
earth; 1 That the project of the annexation of Texas, unless 
arrested on the threshhold, may tend to drive these states into a 
dissolution of the union, and will furnish new calumnies against 
republican governments of exposing the gross contradiction of a 
people professing to be free, and yet seeking to extend and per- 
petuate the subjection of their slaves. 

[Resolutions of transmission.] 

[Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1844. 319.] 



117. Massachusetts Denies the Legality of the 
Admission of Texas. 

March 26, 1845. 
Whereas, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has, through 
her Legislature, with great unanimity, in the years one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-three, and forty-four, and forty five, 
solemnly and strenuously protested against the admission, by the 
federal government, of the foreign nation of Texas, as a State, 

1 Quoted from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. 



231] MASSACHUSETTS ON ADMISSION OF TEXAS 39 

into the Union, because the act would be in direct viola- 
tion of the Constitution of the United States, and because it 
would perpetuate the slavery of a portion of mankind in America, 
and because it would extend the unequal rule of representation, 
by federal numbers, over a new region never within the contem- 
plation of those who consented to its establishment, at the time of 
the formation of the Constitution : and whereas, the consent of 
the executive and legislative departments of the government of 
the United States has been given, by a resolution passed on the 
twenty-seventh day of February last, to the adoption of prelimin- 
ary measures to accomplish this nefarious project : Therefore, 
be it 

Resolved, That Massachusetts hereby refuses to acknowledge 
the act of the government of the United States, authorizing the 
admission of Texas, as a legal act, in any way binding her from 
using her utmost exertions in cooperation with other States, by 
every lawful and constitutional measure, to annual its conditions, 
and defeat its accomplishment. 

Resolved, That the annexation of a large slaveholding territory, 
at the will of the government of the United States, with the de- 
clared intention of giving strength to the institution of domestic 
slavery in these states, is an alarming encroachment upon the 
rights of the freemen of the Union, a perversion of the principles 
of republican government, a deliberate assault upon the compro- 
mises of the Constitution, and demands the strenuous, united and 
persevering opposition of all persons, without distinction, who 
claim to be the friends of human liberty. 

Resolved, That the right to hold men as slaves was conceded 
by the Constitution of the United States to be a matter exclusively 
belonging to those States in which that right was acknowledged, 
upon the understandings however, that the power which it gives, 
should be exercised strictly within those limits, but now that it 
arrogates the control of millions of freemen living beyond them, 
and puts at hazard the predominance of the principles of liberty 
in America, it justifies the adoption on their part, of a systematic 
policy of counteraction, by lawful and constitutional means, even 
though that policy should ultimately bring on the downfall of 
slavery itself. 



4 o STATE DOCUMENTS [232 

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States was framed 
in order to protect a people of freemen, and perpetuate the bless- 
ings of liberty to them and posterity, and that Massachusetts will 
cooperate with any, or all, of the free States of the Union, in an 
honest endeavor, by lawful means, to restore it in every case 
where it has been perverted from the fulfillment of its original and 
noble purpose. 

Resolved, That no territory hereafter applying to be admitted 
to the Union, as a State, should be admitted without a condition 
that domestic slavery should be utterly extinguished within its 
borders, and Massachusetts denies the validity of any compromise 
whatsoever, that may have been, or that hereafter may be, entered 
into by persons in the government of the Union, intended to pre- 
clude the future application of such a condition by the people 
acting through their representatives in the Congress of the 
United States. 

[Resolutions of transmission.] 

[Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1 843-1845. 651-653.] 



Inter-State Controversies. Georgia — Maine and 

Virginia — New York. 

1837-1843. 

In two cases the refusal of the Governors of Northern States to honor re- 
quisitions from the executives of Southern States for persons charged with 
" slave-stealing " created great excitement and general protest in the South. 
The first, between Georgia and Maine, occurred in 1837, tne second, between 
Virginia and New York, in 1839. For the correspondence of Governors 
Scheley of Ga., and Dunlap of Me., see Senate Doc, 26 Cong., 1 sess., V, No. 
273, Niles, LIII, 71, 72; LV, 356. The refusal of the Governor of Maine to 
comply with the requisition led the Legislature of Georgia, Dec. 25, 1837, *° 
call upon the Legislature of Maine to redress the grievance. (Acts of Ga., 
1837, 282-287.) Their failure to do so led Georgia to adopt a memorial to 
Congress, Dec. 24, 1839, declaring that " To this generation has been reserved 
the humiliating spectacle of a sovereign State making herself a city of refuge 
for fugitive felons from her sister confederates." They pronounced the ex- 
isting laws inadequate, and proposed amending them so as to require the 
Federal Judges and Marshals to cause the arrest and delivery of fugitives from 



233] INTER-STATE CONTROVERSIES 4I 

justice and service. {Acts of Ga., 1839, 229-231; Senate your., 26 Cong., I 
sess., 235, 236; Niles LVIII, 27.) New Jersey expressed its view on the obliga- 
tion to carry out the law, Niles, LVI, 215, Acts of N. J., 1838-39, 242. 

In the meantime a second controversy had arisen owing to the refusal of 
Gov. Seward of N. Y., to honor the requisition from Virginia. (For Seward's 
correspondence with Va., 1839-41, and messages see Works, II, 385, 390, 
413, 449-516.) The Virginia Legislature thereupon adopted an elaborate re- 
port and resolutions, March 17, 1840, extracts from which follow. {Acts of 
Va., 1839-40, 155-169.) Seward declining to reverse his decision, and New 
York having passed a law granting trial by jury to fugitive slaves, {Laws of 
N. Y., 1840, 174.) Virginia retaliated March 13, 1841, by passing an in- 
spection law entitled, " An act to prevent citizens of New York from carrying 
slaves out of the Commonwealth," etc. {Acts of Va., 1840-41 ; 79-82). Her 
Executive, Gov. Gilmer refused to surrender a forger to New York until 
Seward would honor his requisition for the slave- stealers, thereupon the Leg- 
islature of Va. condemned the action of the Governor and he resigned. 
{Ibid, 157, 158; Niles, LX, 55, 68-70, 150-152.) The Whig Legislature of 
New York sustained Seward, but April 11, 1842, the Legislature being 
Democratic, passed resolutions in disapproval of his position {Laws of N. Y., 

1842, 419), which Seward refused to transmit. ( Works, II, 432-435.) 
These two controversies called out resolutions from the other Southern 

States pledging their support to Georgia and Virginia in the maintenance of 
their rights. Those of South Carolina and Mississippi are given as representa- 
tive. South Carolina, Dec. 17, 1841, also passed an inspection law directed 
against New York, similar to that of Virginia. {Act of S. C, 1841, 149- 
152; Niles, LXI, 372.) The resolutions of the other states were adopted as 
follows: Alabama, Feb. 2, 1839, Sess. of 1840-41, Apr. 27, 1841, Feb. 14, 

1843. dels of Ala. 1838-39, 211; ibid, 1840-41, 199; ibid, April 1841, 19; 
ibid, Dec. 1843, 22 5'> Louisiana, March 16, 1842, Acts of La., 1842, 288, 
289; Maryland, Apr. 6, 1841, Acts of Md., 1841, Res. No. 9; Missouri, Feb. 
16, 1841, Laws of Mo., 1840-41, 336,337; South Carolina, Dec. 17, 1841, Rep. 
and Res. of S. C, 1841, 44-49. See also Senate Doc, 26 Cong. 2 sess., II, No # 
96, III, No. 127, Niles, LVII, 272; LXIX, 374, 404; LX, 90; LXI, 372; 
LXIIj, 86, 112, 117. For correspondence of Seward growing out of another 
controversy with Georgia, see Works, II, 519-546; Niles, LXI, 241. 

General references: Channing and Hart, Guide, % 189; Wilson, 1, 473-475 ; 
Von Hoist, II, 538-540; Smith, I, 50, 51 ; Bryant and Gay, IV, 340-342; 
Seward's Works, I, lxiii-lxv; Seward's Autobiography, 437-439, 463, 464, 
528-531; Bancroft, Seward, I, 101-105; Lathrop, Seward, 38-42. Cal- 
houn's Works, III, 155, 156; Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches, I, 340-352; 
Pierce, Sumner, II, 256-259. 



42 STATE DOCUMENTS [234. 

118. South Carolina on the Georgia-Maine 
Controversy. 

December 20, 1839. 

* * * The facilities which the Federal Constitution affords 
to citizens of the United States, who are inimical to slavery, of 
abducting and inveigling slaves from their owners, and the 
temptation to embrace those facilities, which is suggested by 
such impunity, as the authorities of Maine have provided for her 
citizens, presents a conjuncture, which the least timid, and the 
most prudent amongst us, may well deem full of peril to the rights 
of the South. Where [when] the safe-guards of the Federal Con- 
stitution shall have become ineffectual and illusory, then, indeed, 
will the period have arrived, when the states of the South must 
take care that their citizens sustain no detriment. Let us tell our 
brethren of the North, mildly, but resolutely, that if they did in- 
troduce slaves amongst us against our remonstrance, they shall 
not remove them against our consent, and that whilst we will 
tolerate no impairment of our title to our property, in the Halls 
of the Federal Legislature, we will, also, permit no State to 
convert itself into a city of refuge, for those who invade it as 
felons. 

Your Committee recommend the adoption of the following 
resolutions : 

1. Resolved, That it is the duty, as well as the right of any 
State, to insist on a faithful observance of the Federal Constitu- 
tion, by each State in the Union. 

2. Resolved, That to define crimes and felonies, within its 
jurisdiction, is an incident to the sovereignity of each State, and 
that no other State can question the exercise of that right. 

3. Resolved, That to demand the surrender and removal of 
fugitives from its justice, is, by the Constitution, a right, and the 
arrest and surrender a duty ; that the denial or impairment of 
this right, is inconsistent with the constitutional obligation of a 
State and subversive of the peace and good government of the 
other States. 

4. Resolved, That the right has been impaired, if not denied, 



235] VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK 43 

by the authorities of Maine and that this State will never consent, 
that any State shall become an asylum for those, who are fugitives 
from the justice of other States. 

5. Resolved \ That this State will make common cause with any 
State of the Confederacy, in maintaining their just rights, under 
the guarantee of the Constitution of the United States, and should 
the obligations of that instrument be disregarded, by those 
whose duty it may be to enforce them, it will take counsel with 
its co- States of the Confederacy, having similar interests to pro- 
tect, or similar injuries to redress, in devising and adopting such 
measures as will maintain, at all hazards, those rights — and that 
property, which the obligations of the compact of union, cancelled 
as they then will be as to us, have failed to enforce. [Resolu- 
tions of transmission.] 

{^Reports and Resolutions of S, C, 1839, 86-91, passim.~] 



119. Virginia on the New York- Virginia Controversy. 

March 17, 1840. 

* * * The patience of the south has already been too 
severely taxed, and we once for all, without bravado or threat, in 
the language of a distinguished senator of New York, warn the 
non-slave-holding states " that they may find when it is too late 
that the patience of the south, however well founded upon princi- 
ple, from repeated aggressions will become exhausted." * * * 

1. Resolved, That the reasons assigned by the governor of New 
York for his refusal to surrender Peter Johnson, Edward Smith 
and Isaac Gansey as fugitives from justice, upon the demand of 
the executive of this state, are wholly unsatisfactory; and that 
that refusal is a palpable and dangerous violation of the constitu- 
tion and laws of the United States. 

2. Resolved, That the course pursued by the executive of New 
York cannot be acquiesced in ; and if sanctioned by that state and 
persisted in, it will become the solemn duty of Virginia to adopt 
the most decisive and efficient measures for the protection of the 



44 STATE DOCUMENTS [236 

property of her citizens, and the maintenance of rights, which she 
can and will not, under any circumstances, surrender or abandon. 

3. Resolved, That the governor of this state be authorized and 
requested to renew his correspondence with the executive of New 
York, requesting that that functionary will review the grounds taken 
by him ; and that he will urge the consideration of the subject 
upon the legislature of his state. 

4. Resolved, That the governor of Virginia be requested to 
open a correspondence with the executive of each of the slave- 
holding states, requesting their co-operation in any necessary and 
proper measure of redress which Virginia may be forced to adopt. 
[Resolutions of transmission.] 

[Acts of Virginia, 1839-40, 168, 169.] 



120. Mississippi on the Rendition of Fugitives from 

Justice. 

February 6, 1841. 

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Mississippi, 
That the right of the executive authority of one state to demand 
fugitives from justice of the executive authority of another state, 
and the duty of the latter to surrender such fugitives upon such 
demand, is a right secured by the terms of the federal compact, 
a right which cannot be denied without a palpable violation of the 
constitution, and a right which no state legislature can annul, 
evade or impair. 

Be it further resolved, That the attempt of the governor and 
legislature of the state of Maine, and the governor of New York, 
to evade, impair and deny that right, is deemed by this legisla- 
ture, an outrage upon the chartered rights of Virginia and 
Georgia, and a precedent full of danger to all the slave-holding 
states. 

Be it further resolved, That this state will make common cause 
with any of her sister states whose rights have been or may here- 
after be invaded as aforesaid, in any mode or measure of resist- 



237] SOUTH CAROLINA AND MASSACHUSETTS 45 

ance or redress necessary for their or our protection. [Resolu- 
tions of transmission.] 

[Laws of Mississippi, 1841, 155, 156.] 



Inter-State Controversies. South Carolina and 

Massachusetts. 

1839-1845. 

The "Negro Seaman's Act" of South Carolina of 1822 (Ante, pp. 204- 
207), was superseded by a new law, Dec. 19, 1835. (Acts of S. C, 1835,34-39; 
Greeley, I, 179, note.) This act like the previous one led to complaints. 
The Mass. Legislature passed resolves, April 8, 1839 and March 3, 1842, pro- 
testing against it, and authorizing the Governor to take steps to secure the re- 
lease of any of their citizens so imprisoned. (Acts and Res, of Mass., 
1839-42, 105, 568; Niles, LVIII, no; House Jour., 26 Cong. I sess., 786.) 
These protests were without avail, and in the meantime Louisiana, March 16, 
1842, passed a similar law. (Acts of La., 1842, 308-318.) The Mass. 
Legislature then determined to test the constitutionality of these acts, and 
accordingly adopted resolutions March 24, 1843 anc * March 16, 1844, author- 
izing the Governor to send agents to each of these states to institute legal 
proceedings to that end. {Acts and Res. of Mass., 1843-45, 81, 330.) Act- 
ing under the second of these measures, Samuel Hoar proceeded to Charleston 
and Henry Hubbard to New Orleans. Mr. Hoar upon his arrival addressed 
Gov. Hammond of S. C, who informed the Legislature of his mission. That 
body shortly passed the subjoined resolutions for Mr. Hoar's expulsion from 
the state, and an act to prohibit and punish similar missions in the future. 
(Acts of S. C, 1844, ID °, 292, 293; Niles, LXVII, 326, 327, 346, 347; 
Greeley, I, 181.) For Mr. Hoar's report of his treatment see, Niles, LXVII, 
315-317 : and for similar experience of Mr. Hubbard in La., ibid, 323, 346, 398, 
399. The earlier resolutions of Mass. had called out a reply from Georgia, 
Dec. 28, 1842, sharply rebuking Mass's, resolutions "as the sickley effusions 
of a wild and reckless fanaticism," and defending her own law of a similar 
nature. (Acts of Ga., 1842, 181.) Maine also protested against these acts 
of the southern states, March 22, 1843. (Senate Doc, 28 Cong. I sess., IV, 
No. 245.) The action of S. C, was endorsed and that of Mass. condemned by 
the Legislatures of Ark., Ga., Miss, and Ala., during 1845-46. (Acts of Ark. 
1844-45, 163, Acts of Ga., 1845, 209-211, Senate Doc, 29 Cong., I sess., IV, 
100; Laws of Miss., 1846, 542, 543; Acts of Ala., 1844-45, 2I 4-) Mr - Hoar's 
report was submitted to the Legislature of Mass., and on March 25, 1845, they 
adopted an elaborate report severely arraigning S. C. and recording a solemn 



46 STATE DOCUMENTS [238 

protest. On the following day they passed resolutions condemning the action 
of S. C. and La., which made " an appeal to the Federal Courts for redress in 
such cases, an offense punishable as an infamous crime," and demanding from 
Congress protection for her absent citizens. {Acts and Res. of Mass., 1843-45, 
626-645,648, 649, 681-685; Mies, LXVII, 314,315,394-398.) Congress 
took no action, and Mass., May 22, 1852, again protested against the sale of 
her citizens into slavery, this time in Texas. {Acts and Res. of Mass., 1852-53, 
307.) The new act of S. C. called out a protest from the British consul in 
1850, but the Legislature refused to essentially change the law. {Report and 
Res. of S. C, 1850,242-245; ibid, 1851, 99-1 11. References: Greeley, I, 
178-185; Von Hoist, III, 131-139; Wilson, I, ch. xli. 



121. South Carolina on the Mission of Samuel Hoar. 

December 5, 1844. 

Resolved, That the right to exclude from their territories sedi- 
tious persons, or others, whose presence may be dangerous to 
their peace, is essential to every independent State. 

Resolved, That free negroes and persons of color are not citi- 
zens of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution, 
which confers upon the citizens of one State the privileges and 
immunities of citizens in the several States. 

Resolved, That the emissary sent by the State of Massachusetts 
to the State of South Carolina, with the avowed purpose of inter- 
fering with her institutions, and disturbing her peace, is to be re- 
garded in the character he has assumed, and to be treated ac- 
cordingly. 

Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to 
expel from our territory the said Agent, after due notice to de- 
part, and that the Legislature will sustain the Executive authority 
in any measures it may adopt for the purpose aforesaid. 

^Reports and Resolutions of South Carolina, 1844, 160.] 



2 39] VIRGINIA CONDEMNS MASSACHUSE1TS 47 

Replies to Massachusetts' Proposal to Abolish Rep- 
resentation for Slaves. 
1843-1844. 

The Democratic Legislature of Mass., March 23, 1843, proposed an amend- 
ment to the Federal Constitution to apportion representatives and direct 
taxes among the States according to their respective number of free persons. 
{Acts and Res, of Mass,, 1843-45, 79.) Its presentation to Congress called 
out " the most memorable debate ever entertained in the House," (Adams, 
Memoirs, XI, 455,) and resolutions of condemnation from Georgia, Dec. 25, 
1843, an d Alabama, Jan. 17, 1844. The next Legislature of Mass., the 
Whigs now being in control, indorsed the same amendment. This second 
resolution aroused still greater excitement and condemnation both in and out 
of Congress. The legislatures of Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Georgia 
during 1844-45 bitterly denounced the proposition and the state of Mass. 
The resolutions of Virginia are given below. Mass. replied to Virginia's 
accusation March 14, 1844, unanimously reaffirming its position and the right 
of amendment. (Acts and Res. of Mass., 1843-44, 325-328, Niles, LXVI, 
67.) References: For text of Resolutions and discussion in Congress, see, 
Acts of Ga., 1843, x 86; ibid, 1845, 2 °6> 207; Acts of Ala., 1843-44, 196; 
ibid, 1844-45, 211-214; Acts of Va., 1843-44, 115; Acts of Ky., 1844, 2 ^9» 
270; Senate Doc, 28 Cong., 1 sess., Ill, Nos. 106, 156; ibid, 29 Cong., I sess., 
IV, No. 101; Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., I sess., 64-66, 179-180, 243, 342, 360, 
361; Niles, LXV, 349, 382; LXVI, 13, 31. Wilson I, 482-487; Ames, Pro- 
posed Amend., 46-49, 352; Julian, Life of Giddings, 151—153. 



122. Virginia Condemns Massachusetts' Proposed 
Amendment. 

February 15, 1844. 

* * * It is well known that the recognition and protection of 
the peculiar interests of the slaveholding states, by making the 
slaves a part of the basis of representation and taxation in the 
federal government, was a compromise upon which the federal 
union of the states was formed ; was acknowledged by Massachu- 
setts, in convention, as the language of all America ; adopted in 
the federal convention by a vote almost unanimous ; and is essen- 



48 STATE DOCUMENTS [240 

tial to the peace, welfare and continuance of the slaveholding 
states in this Union. Therefore, 

1. Resolved unanimously by the general assembly of Virginia^ 
That we cannot regard these resolutions as, in truth, a proposi- 
tion to amend the federal constitution, but virtually one to dis- 
solve the Union. 

2. That whilst we have forborne the expression of complaint at 
the disturbance of the peace and safety of the south by the agita- 
tion of the subject of our peculiar domestic institutions, by indi- 
viduals and voluntary societies at the north, we regard this attack 
by the highest constitutional authority of a sister state, as in the 
highest degree unjust, unkind, faithless to the compromises of the 
constitution, and meriting the deepest condemnation of every 
patriot and friend of the Union. 

3. That when we look back to those periods of our history 
when Massachusetts and Virginia co-operated so cordially, zeal- 
ously and effectively in achieving our independence, and secur- 
ing it by the adoption of our federal constitution, we cannot but 
regard this attack with increased regret and abhorrence. 

4. That the governor of this commonwealth be and he is hereby 
requested to communicate copies of the foregoing preamble and 
resolutions to the governors of the several states, with the request 
that they may be laid before their respective legislatures ; to the 
senators and representatives in congress from Virginia ; and 
especially to return the original resolutions to the governor ot 
Massachusetts. 

[Acts of Virginia, 1843-44, 115.] 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



STATE DOCUMENTS 

ON 

FEDERAL RELATIONS 

The States and the United States. 

EDITED WITH NOTES BY 

HERMAN V.AMES, Ph.D. 



"Almost every State in the Union in turn declared its own sovereignty, and denounced 
as almost treasonable, similar declarations in other cases by other States.'' 

Alexander Johnston. 

This series comprises typical documents covering the official action of 
various States in different sections of the country relative to the chief political 
and constitutional issues in our history, with especial reference to the doctrine 
of " State Rights/' 

Five numbers have been published, and a sixth is to be added shortly, as 
it proved impossible to include typical resolutions on slavery in one number. 

i. Interpretation of the Constitution during the First Two Decades of 
its History. 1789-1809. 44 pages. 

Contents : Rhode Lland and the Union, 1789 ; Virginia and State Debts, 1790; 
Jurisdiction of the Courts, New Hampshire and Georgia, 1793-95; Replies of the 
State to the Kentucky and Virginia Revolution; Anti-embargo resolutions, etc. 

2. State Rights and the War of 1812. 1809-1815. 44 pages. 

Contents : The Olmstead Case, Resolutions of Pennsylvania, and replies of 
the other States ; The New England States and the Militia Question ; Massachu- 
setts on the admission of Louisiana; Resolutions against the Embargo and the Con- 
scription Bill; The Call, and Report of the Hartford Convention; Replies of other 
States to amendments proposed. 

3. The Reserved Rights of the States and the Jurisdiction of Federal 

Courts. 1819-1832. 44 pages. 

Contents : Pennsylvania Anti-Bank Resolutions ; Replies of other States ; Re- 
port and Resolutions of Ohio relative to the Bank and the Powers of the Federal 
Judiciary; Replies of other States; Virginia and Kentucky and the Federal Judic- 
iary; Georgia and the Creek and Cherokee Indian Controversies; Replies of other 
States. 

4. The Tariff and Nullification. 1820-1833. 60 pages. 

Contents : Resolutions of the Southern States against the Tariff and Internal Im- 
provement Laws: Replies of Northern States ; Nullification Resolutions of South 
Carolina, and the Replies of the Co-States, etc. 

5. Slavery and the Constitution. 1789-1845. 48 pages. 

6. Slavery and the Union. 1845-1861. 

Contents : Resolution on the Wilmot Proviso; Compromise of 1850; Secession 
movement of 1850-52; Fugitive Slave Law; Kansas-Nebraska Bill; Dred Scott 
Case; Lecompton Constitution; John Brown insurrection; Secession and Coercion, 
etc. To follow. 

Limited Edition Printed from Type, 

Price : Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, 30 cents each ; No. 4, 35 cents. Subscription for 

the six numbers, $1.50, or bound in one volume, $1.75. 

Address, 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, 

University of 'Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Or LONGMANS, GHEEN & CO. NEW YORK. 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





013 543 266 






